But even the enrolled
Scottish citizen had often to suffer from the ill-will of the German
fellow-citizen. A very curious and instructive case of this sort is
recorded from Neidenburg. In this small town, to the south of Konigsberg,
a Scot, with the name of Duncan, had settled, and for more than twenty
years attended to his business. In 1603, he had a quarrel with the
magistrates on accoutit of a house which he had bought and of his having
added cloth to his stock-in-trade. So far, this was only the common form
of trade jealousy. But the matter went much further. Let us listen to poor
Duncan’s story in his own words. "Some people in Neidenburg," he writes,
"not only prevent me from brewing my beer, but also try to hinder me from
erecting on my own ground, bought by me twenty years ago, instead of the
old coach-house another building to contain an upper room and a closet. In
consequence of this, when the old building had already been taken down and
the new foundation laid with all wood-work ready, they send Wolf Geschell
and Uttman to me on holy Easter eve to let me know that I was not to
proceed with the building or else they would pull it down again. Whereupon
on Easter Monday I complained to the governor, and asked for protection
which he promised, bidding me at the same time go on with my building; he
would order the aforesaid two men in virtue of his office to leave me in
peace. But when I was away at Thorn on Tuesday, and my carpenters had
completed their work, Dominick Uttman, being then vice-consul, in the
absence of the burgomaster sent from house to house, ordering every one
under penalty of three marks to be present at nine of the clock on the
following morning at the town-hall, with their axes and spears for to tear
down my new building. At the appointed hour on Friday, the alarm-bell is
rung to call the inhabitants together. But because many did not approve of
proceedings so violent, and consequently stayed away, he again commands
them under penalty of ten marks and imprisonment in the tower to come
forward, and when the bell had tolled twice at one o’clock, he, Dominick
Uttman, as the author of this tumult, marches off with those who had
gathered together; although many others, and especially the judge, whom my
poor terrified wife had implored for protection, tried to dissuade him,
representing to him that the governor and burgomaster as well as myself
were from home; yet he, having some of the town council with him who were,
together with himself; urging the armed rabble on, caused ladders to be
raised against the house, and mounting to the top they strike, cut, break
and throw down at their pleasure, until the whole upper story is
demolished. Even strangers that passed, crowded together, especially some
of the Polish nobility who, viewing the turnout, deplore the great
destruction, and express their detestation of the crime in words like
these: ‘In other places people are enjoined to erect pretty buildings, in
Prussia they are forced to pull them down.’ Some of the rioters, stung by
this remark, were drawing back, when Dominick ordered the beadle to use
his whip, as if they were a herd of cattle; and the town carpenter, who
did not want to participate in these acts of violence, and had said to him
he would rather sit in the dungeon for some weeks than assist in these
unlawful doings, he had cast into prison after the rioting was over. He
also caused my servant girl, who had jokingly asked one of the rioters to
come in and have something to eat after a hard day’s work, to be suddenly
taken up in the lane unawares and to be put in prison for some days, so
that I, poor man, can find neither justice nor protection in Neidenburg."

Duncan, who, as will be
noticed, did not want an eye for the picturesque, afterwards obtained
permission to go on with the building. [Brussius (Bruce) also interceded
for him as a ‘mercator honestus’ (1606).] He was to pay to the magistrates
the sum of twenty gulden as ground rent and one mark annually, but he was
not allowed to light a fire in his house. As to his dealing in cloth, he
was not allowed to sell common cloths outside the public fairs. Fine
cloths, however, at one and more gulden a yard, he was at liberty to sell
and to cut. To this decision was added the note: "Let him behave
reverentially and be obedient to the magistrates, and do not let the
latter be too hasty." The permission given to sell cloth at all was,
however, very distasteful to the guild of cloth merchants. They complain
again and again against Duncan and his son-in-law as the "blood-suckers"
of the country.

It was pitiful, indeed,
that to a life already so full of trouble from within, new trouble should
be added, arising in their own home. We have already mentioned the various
begging missions of King Charles II. and the names of those who, according
to an extraordinary knack of this monarch always to appoint the worst
persons to the worst place, were put in charge of them. [See Scots in
Germany.] We are enabled now to give additional details which will
show the different attitudes of the King of Poland and the Kurfürst of
Brandenburg towards the scheme of extracting money from Scotsmen now
living within these territories.

The first information we
get of this plan is contained in a letter of Frederick William to the
members of his council in the Duchy of Prussia, dated 1651, 20th of
January. In it he simply declares that a subsidium charitativum, as
he calls it, be collected from the English and Scots living in his
domains. Two months later, on March 30th, after due consideration he says,
in a circular letter to all his Magistrates and Councils: "We have decreed
that for the distressed Royalty of Great Britain, ten per cent. should be
collected from the Scots and English within our territories. But after
those Scots and English who have settled in our towns at this time and
have borne all civil burdens and contributions have humbly besought us not
to impose this extraordinary tax upon them, it is not our intention to
grieve our subjects and citizens with a double and heavy tax, but we shall
be satisfied, if only those Scots who are not domiciliated are applied to,
but the others who have obtained civil rights and are settled in our towns
passed by in the meantime."

Scarcely had this letter
been dispatched when on the following day a new letter was sent after it.
Apparently the Churfurst was in great difficulties; on the one side his
sense of fairness, on the other hand his distressed royal brother and the
strong appeals of the hot-headed King of Poland. He now writes: "We do not
see that anything worth speaking of could be collected from the vagabonds
and pedlars alone, for there are not very many of them who would be able
to contribute anything at all. It would be very disreputable if we were to
send such a trifling sum as a contribution. We consider it necessary,
therefore, and wish to impress it upon you, and request you to send for
all the inhabitants of the Scottish or English nation in our Duchy of
Prussia and to represent to them in the most moving terms how they for the
love of their country and respect for their King should not refuse to pay
this subsidy willingly; with this additional assurance that no precedent
should be established thereby."

The temper of the Scottish
and English residents in Prussia with regard to this matter is very well
expressed in the memorial which the latter presented to the magistrates of
Konigsberg on the third day of October 1651.

"We have communicated with
our countrymen, the English settlers in this town, of whom there are only
four, respecting the contribution of a subsidy to His Majesty in Scotland.
Now we would like very much indeed that we were in such a position as to
be able to appease the restlessness and the disturbed state of our native
country by it and to remedy all misfortune. But such is the condition of
our dear fatherland that if we were to obey this request at once, and the
people there came to know of it, not only our property but our lives and
those of our own families would be forfeited after those that would assist
the King having been declared traitors by Parliament. What have we done,
that by a contribution like this, our total ruin should be wrought? We who
are only guests here and have never mixed ourselves up with the quarrel
between King and Parliament, but have simply attended to our business and
as factors to the orders of our principals? In so doing we have
contributed large sums to the treasury not only but also enriched the
community of this town. We can prove from our books that the duty paid by
us amounted annually to 30,000 gulden. All this would cease if we and our
principals and the whole English and Scottish trade were to be driven out
from here. And how could it be otherwise since all the more important
ports are in the hands of the Parliament? The only way to save our lives
and our property and that of our friends in England would be to emigrate
to other places such as Danzig, Elbing, etc., where this request has not
only been rejected but the person and the property of the English been
taken under the protection of the authorities, whilst their trade was
declared free and all magistrates enjoined to petition His Majesty the
King on their behalf." This document was signed by John Cottam, Thomas
Taylor, Joseph Wynde, and John Burges.

In the meantime Croffts,
one of Charles’ messengers, had not been idle. He was very anxious to know
the result of his appeal. We find him writing from Thorn to the
magistrates of Konigsberg, requesting them to send the details of the
collection (June 14th, 1651); and again seven weeks later from Danzig to
the Council Boards of Prussia. He had commissioned Colonel Seton to go to
Königsberg and confer with the magistrates there. He concludes by saying:
"The matter suffers no delay since the King presses me for a detailed
account which I cannot give without having received a definite answer
from. you."

It seems almost incredible
that this could have been said and done in the face of Charles’ letter, in
which he disavows Croffts, and which was dated Dec. 9th, 1650. One is
almost tempted to believe in a forgery, as was actually done by Johannes
Casimirus, the King of Poland, who, in an angry letter of Sept. 1651,
threatens the Scots in his kingdom with expulsion because they made
"certain forged letters the pretext of not paying the contribution."

But the royal missive was
no forgery, as we know from a letter issued by the magistrates of Danzig
to the Scots who had asked for a Latin translation of it. It officially
sets forth its genuineness. The signature had, by comparison with other
letters of the same writer, been found genuine, the seal intact, and the
whole document free from any suspicious feature.

The half-heartedness of
Frederick William, the Churfurst, also appears, from a letter of
protection issued on the first of June 1651 to the following six
Scotsmen:— Hans Dinings (Dennis?), Hans Simson, Gilbert Ramsay, Andrew
Ritchie, Hans Brown and Hans Emslie, in which it is expressly stated that
the bearers as inhabitants and citizens of Königsberg paying taxes to the
Prince, were in nowise obliged to give the tenth part of their possessions
to His Royal "Dignity" in Great Britain, as the other Scots in Poland. The
letter granted them safe-conduct for themselves and their goods,
especially in their journeys to and from the fairs of Elbing and Danzig,
where otherwise their property might have been confiscated at the
instigation of the British Orator, because of their nonpayment of the
subsidy. At the same time, it certified that they were settled in
Königsberg and not at Danzig; therefore not under the jurisdiction of
Poland.

Little remains to be told
of this sad tale of double-dealing. The subsidium charitativum
proved no success. All Croffts got amounted to about 10,000 pounds, as we
have seen, and how little of this sum ever reached the King will perhaps
never be fully known. [See Scots in Germany.]

The reader of these old
records concerning the Scots in Germany cannot fail to be greatly
impressed by these facts: the comparatively inoffensive lives these
colonists led, their unbroken energy and the quick way they ascended in
the second or third generation to positions of trust and eminence.

Barring that large and
undesirable element that swept across the Northern States of Germany
during the great flood of Scottish emigration—an element the greatest
crimes of which seem to have been its youth and poverty—we seldom find the
Scot implicated in criminal cases. We say "seldom," of course, in
consideration of the long centuries of their settlement and their vast
numbers, which at one time must have exceeded by far the thirty thousand
mentioned by Lithgow. Neither was the moral atmosphere of Germany in the
XVIIth Century particularly fit to inspire and invigorate any man’s
character. Requesting the reader to keep both these points in view we
shall now give a few examples of the Scot as he appeared before the German
Courts.

In the minute books of the
Courts at Bromberg we are told of Jacobus Herin (Heron), Scotus, who is
accused of having sent his famulus David Heron to attack a Scotch
tailor, with the name of Alexander, whom he wounded (1598). Heron replies
that David was nobilis et sui juris, of noble birth and of age, and
not his famulus. He himself knew nothing of the crime, having on
the day of its committal been absent in Thorn on business (mercatum).
The same books relate how a Scot with the name of Wolson (Wilson), who had
been president of the court of bailies in the absence of the Starost, was
called before the council of the town, and accused of having suppressed
certain important documents to the detriment of the place (1671). He,
however, appeared only to deny the competency of the court, and "went
away."

In Stuhm, in the year 1594,
a virago strangles her husband, David Trumb (?), a Scot, by means of his
own suspenders, and throws his body out on the field of one Junker Brandis.
[History of the District of Stuhm.] The small town of Hohenstein
reports that two and a half years ago a quarrel and fight took place
between some Scots and some peasants (1604). [This notice is interesting
also from a linguistic point of view, the word for quarrel or fight being
"parlament.’] On Dec. 10th, 1555, Alex. Paton, David Alston and George
Fleck appear before the court at Neuenburg. During a quarrel, George Fleck
had wounded Alexander in the left hand, and he had to get it dressed in
the town. The parties settle the matter amicably for the sake of good
friendship, on condition that Alexander pay the barber. Jacob Forbes, in a
case of manslaughter, is indignant at the Governor of Rastenburg for
distraining a sum of money whilst he was quite willing to come to terms
peaceably with the family of the deceased, whom he had killed by accident
only and not by malice (1569).

To a similar charge, one
Albrecht Braun has to answer, but it is not quite clear in his case
whether he was a Scot or not (1586).

Hans Wilandt, a Scot, in
the town of Konitz, must retract his insults and swear not to offend
Andrew Bernt, a jeweller, again (1587); whilst some years later, on the
13th of April, 1598, Alexander Nisbett has to vouch for the honesty of a
certain purchase of corn. In Tilsit, John Irving and his workman Anderson
are taken before the bench on account of desecrating the solemn day of
repentance by selling some goods to a Pole. He is admonished and fined in
one thaler (1684). In the same town, Jacob Murray is brought up to pay his
rent after having been called on forty times. He pleads great poverty, and
promises to pay within a week (1687). [Kgl. St. Archiv, Konigsberg.]

Very curious is the case of
Hamilton, or Hammelton as the German records spell his name. He was a
citizen of Tilsit, a cooper by trade, poor, "so that he seldom kept
strange servants, but managed to get along with the help of his two
grown-up sons, leading a respectable life," as a certificate says, which
the town, at his request, issued in 1687.

Now the peace of mind of
father Hamilton is greatly disturbed by the slanderous behaviour of three
or four other coopers, Germans, who in a letter had accused his son
Christoph of having fraternised with the son of the executioner at
Konigsberg. Nothing could be more disreputable, more hurtful to the moral
feelings of those days, than to have any intercourse with those social
outcasts, "unehrliche Leute," as they were called in German, of whom the
executioner was the foremost and the most formidable. Accordingly,
Hamilton appeals to the law, and the following judgment is given on the
15th of March 1688:

"Whereas Master Andr.
Lorentz, Master Abraham Kraus, as well as David Kraus and Johann Lorentz,
coopers by trade, defendants, have written to the cooperguild at
Königsberg accusing Christopher Hamilton, the plaintiff, of having in a
public beerhouse fraternised with the executioner’s son, which, though
denied by them, has been sworn to by two witnesses, and whereas they have
refused to arrange matters amicably, the Court of Bailies decide that the
defendants go to prison for a night and a day, binding them over to hold
the peace. Thereupon they were at once marched off to the cells." [Kgl.
St. Archiv, Konigsberg, E. P. Fol.]

Hot temper seems to have
been the origin of many of the reported crimes. Already in 1517 a case of
that kind is reported of a Scot from Dumblane, Henry Gorm, aggravated by
an attempt of robbery. It was, however, privately settled by the Danzig
magistrates. [Kgl. St. Archiv, Danzig, D. xvii.] In Schöneck, a
Scot is imprisoned on suspicion of having killed a man, but he is released
on the testimony of Captain Sutherland, who testifies on his oath that the
deceased was accidentally drowned (1599).

In Jastrow, Hans Forbes,
father of the Burgomaster, Balthasar Forbes, was placed in the dock on the
charge of having shot a man. Having sworn that it had not been done
maliciously, he is fined in 150 gulden (1607). [Cp. Fr. Schulz, Chronik
der Stadt Jastrow, 1896, pp. 55-57. Since 1602 there were eleven
Scotch families in Jastrow: Andr. Barry, Andr. Swan, Hans Forbes, Andr.
Sym, Jurge "a Schott," Thos. Hilliday, Elias Dennix, Jacob Krudde (?),
Adam Darby, John Duncan, Hans and George Smedt (Smith). In the year 1647
therew were only two left who could be called of Scottish nationality.]Very tragic is the story of Barry, another Scot of the same town, who
quarrelled with his wife because she at one time had left him, accusing
him of criminal relations with his step-children. Barry himself then
brought the matter before the court and had her sentenced to death. It was
only through the intercession of the Starost, the president of the court,
that the stubborn man was brought to a more conciliatory frame of mind,
resulting in an amicable adjustment, "because she had done it in great
rashness."

Rather frequent were the
contraventions of the many trade prohibitions. In this respect, as we have
said, the Scottish moral code was lax. We do not wonder, therefore, at
William Hutney, John Ray and William Turry having been called before the
authorities to show reason why they had unlawfully imported into the
kingdom and sold English cloths, which did not bear the mark of the city
of Danzig (1630); or at one Mallisson from Elbing, who is caught fishing
sturgeon in forbidden waters (1661). An offence sure to excite the
reader’s pity is that of Andrew Law, who is unable to live at peace with
his mother-in-law, the widow of Andrew Morrisson, and is on that account
brought before the magistrates of Neuenburg in 1643. [Kgl. St. Archiv,
Konigsberg, W. Pr. Fol.]

The worst cases seem to
have taken place in a small town of Western Prussia, called Deutsch Krone.
Here, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, two or three rich
Scottish merchants ruled, and ruled with a high hand. They were the
Wolsons, the Lawsons and the Malsons. The mischief commenced with John
Malson in 1609 killing a man who had been a furrier by trade. Two of his
countrymen become surety for him; but in the following year he is himself
attacked and killed by two noblemen with the name of Jurno. John Lawson,
who had taken upon himself to pay the alimentation money to the children
of the slain furrier, and who seems to have shared the violent temper of
his friend, killed a Jew a few years later, a crime for which he was
promptly called to account by the Woywod, governor, of Posen, the
officially appointed protector of the Jews. But his extradition is refused
by the Mayor of Krone, who maintains that he alone represented the proper
authority (1615). Of Walson and his money-lending we have already spoken
in another place; how he was accused of wearing the apparel of the rich
and how tight a grip he had on the needy Polish nobility. Later in life he
turned Roman Catholic, and wrote a last will and testament in favour of
the Jesuits, which was, however, contested by the magistrates of the town
(1642).

There are, of course, a
number of other smaller civil cases of debt, pilfering and so on, but on
the whole, here again we have an example of a people’s moral worth being
in the inverse ratio of the full enjoyment of its liberties. Not much
energy is called forth by basking in the sun; it is in fighting that
hearts of oak are made. Any other nation but a sturdy one, physically and
mentally, would have succumbed to a life so full of privations. But the
Scot was reared in hardship and poverty and on plain food; his saving
disposition made him gather property under the most adverse circumstances;
his fidelity to his superiors was beyond suspicion, and having once
obtained by his wealth or the favour of the great a position of influence,
his shrewdness and his clannishness made him use it to the most
far-reaching advantage. In the face of never ending hostilities this was
necessary.

Even at the approach of
death the Scots dared not lay their weapons down. They had to contend
against two curious laws: the jus caducum and the quarta
detractus, as they were respectively called. By the former the
property of a man dying childless, or of a stranger dying in the land, if
not claimed within a certain time reverted to the Crown; the latter gave
the Crown the right to retain one-fourth of the property of the deceased
stranger, provided that the other three-fourths went out of the country.
The official who looked after the interest of the State was called the
Fiscal. It is only natural that these laws proved a very fruitful source
of dispute between Scotland and Germany. It was customary, therefore, in
olden times for the Scottish claimant to provide himself with letters of
introduction and recommendation from King or queen before he started on
his voyage to the Baltic ports, in order to prove his rights to the
property of a deceased relative.

Thus both Queen Mary and
Henry Darnley supply David Melville with letters of recommendation, who
went to Danzig in order to claim the inheritance of his brother James,
after the latter’s death from the plague two years previously (1566). [Kgl.
St. Archiv, Danzig. XCIX. A.] James VI. recommends Captain Arnot, who
goes to Germany claiming an inheritance of his wife, the daughter of
William Forbes, a citizen of Danzig (1581, July 11th); and in 1594,
Joannes Strang, of Balcalzye, who is about to start to the same city, on a
similar errand. Or the magistrates of Perth certify that Jacobus Stobie
has been empowered to regulate certain matters of inheritance at Danzig by
the parties concerned (1589).

Richard Bailly presents a
letter from the magistrates of Edinburgh with respect to the inheritance
of the late Robert Baillie of Danzig, from which it appeared that the
rightful heirs of Robert, who had died childless, were Maria, Jeanet and
Margaret, daughters by a second marriage of Jacob Baillie, late minister
of Lamington, in the county of Lanark, the father of Robert. These three
daughters transfer their rights to Richard Baillie, the bearer (1665).
Thomas and Patrick Aikenhead appoint Robert Tevendail, or Tevendale, and
Daniel Davidson, citizens of Danzig, trustees for the assets of David
Aikenhead, a Polish merchant. [Edinburgh, Nov. 16, 1689.]

We also find the town of
Dumfries on a similar occasion issuing a letter to a certain Greer or
Grier, who went to Danzig to claim the inheritance of his brother (June
20th, 1594). [The witnesses to the letter are Robert Cunningham, Andrew
Cunningham and "Albertus Cunningham, notarius publicus et scriba."]

On the other hand, the
magistrates of Königsberg inform those of Glasgow that they desire to
intercede for one Hannibal Spang, son of Colonel Andrew Spang, who claims
an inheritance amounting to one thousand "Imperiales"(1661).

But all these
recommendations from high and official personages could not prevent
frequent friction between the Fiscal and the Scotch heirs. Sometimes, and
for certain periods and districts only the Kings would transfer their
claims to the inheritance of a stranger to certain persons of merit as a
favour; as when the King of Poland granted the estate of John Tullidaft
who died at Neumark in 1618, and whose property reverted to the Crown to
Robert Cunningham, "nobilis de Bernys auliconostro"in
grateful recognition of his faithful services, or when the same King
Sigismund presents Colonel Learmonth [The name is evidently Polonised.]
with the inheritance of a certain Fritz in 1619.

A very interesting case,
illustrating this law of reversion, happened in Bromberg in 1625. A Scot,
with the curious name of Michael Nosek,had just died there and
the "royal notary," Nicholas Gurski, a nobleman, demands the inheritance
as a donation of the king. The bailies are about to hand over the property
of the deceased when John Varuga and John Brommer, a medical practitioner,
lodge a protest. Finally, the decision of the court is as follows:
Considering

1. That the deceased Nosek had
deposited an authenticated and unobjectionable birth-brief;
2. That he had done military service under King Stephen in Livonia;
3. That he had made Bromberg his domicile, acquiring real estate there;
4. That he had sworn the oath of fealty to the magistrates;
5. That he had married according to the rites of the Roman Catholic
Church, and had begotten children;
6. That he had earned his living in an unobjectionable way; and

7. That he has paid taxes, and had
borne other civic burdens: he has acquired
the rights of a native. The "jus caducum," therefore, can not be applied
to his case, although his wife and his children had died before him, and
his property was left to relations of his wife and to charitable
institutions.

The so-called quarta
deductus, or the right to deduct one-fourth of the inheritance for the
Crown was applicable to Scottish citizens also. The Fiscal’s duty was to
have an inventory made of the deceased Scotsman’s property. For instance,
in 1590, a Scot dies at Johannesburg. Three of his countrymen—Andrew
Robertson, Daniel Nicholl and Alb. Meldrum—undertake the work of
appraising in the presence of the clerk. The goods, in this case mostly
pieces of cloth, are taken to the Castle and there re-valued. Whatever was
retained for the necessary use of the house must be brought to account and
finally the quarter fixed, after the deduction of the debts due. If the
property was small, the rulers of the country often refused to claim it.
Thus, George Frederick, Markgraf of Brandenburg, writes from Konigsberg in
1601 to his magistrates in the country: "Whereas, two years ago, two
Scotsmen named Jacob Chalmer and Richard Watson, travelled together to
Livland, and quarrelled on the road till they came to blows, and Watson
was slain by the other; whereas, also, the culprit fled, and the property
of the killed man fell to the Crown; but whereas, thirdly, the fugitive
has not only come to terms with the deceased’s friends in Scotland, but
His Majesty of Scotland has also written requesting us to give up whatever
may be left of the dead man’s goods in our Duchy to the bearer Alexander
Crichton, who has arranged with the representative of our treasury
concerning the "fourth;" we command all our governors and magistrates to
deliver the said inheritance to him without fail, and to assist him
against Hillebrant Watson, who has already seized upon a great part of the
property."

In 1633, there dies at or
near Memel a Scot with the name of Butchart, leaving "much cattle, money
and outstanding bonds." A good deal of his money was invested in
Königsberg and Tilsit, and Paul Greiff the Elector’s receiver, was not
slow to prosecute his inquiries. "In this way he discovered at the house
of a Scot, called Jacob Guthrie, the sum of two thousand gulden, which he
at once distrained until the deceased’s brother should arrive from
Scotland. Now, as the fourth of the 30,000 gulden left by Butchart were
claimed by the Elector, though Memel was at that time in the hands of the
Swedes, he wrote a letter to that town maintaining the assets to have been
accumulated within his own territories, and asking for a new inventory. [Kgl.
St. Archiv, Konigsberg.]

A long exchange of letters
between the Churfürst and his councillors took place with respect to this
same law at the death of a Captain Trotter in 1653. Forty-three years
later, Frederick III. of Prussia decided that according to the treaties
concluded with England in 1660, and again in 1690, the quarter could not
be claimed of the inheritance of Thomas Scoles, a native of Hull, who had
died at Konigsberg in 1697 or 1698. [In 1692, when Thos. Taylor died at
Kneiphof, the fourth was claimed but not insisted upon if William Garforth,
the heir, would remain in the country. Kgl. St. Archiv, Konigsberg.]
As to Scotland, the treaties seem to have been forgotten until the year
1725, when Allan, a Scotch merchant in Konigsberg, died, leaving a pretty
considerable fortune. The magistrates inquired of the Churfurst concerning
the "quarter," and were told to write to England in order to ascertain
whether or not a duty was levied there on property left to Prussian
subjects in Prussia. In his answer, the Fiscal at Konigsberg pointed out
that in a convention between the Dutch and the English, it had been agreed
that the subjects of neither country should come under the jus
detractus ; and that afterwards in 1661 an agreement with England was
arrived at, according to which subditi suaeMajestatis
Brittannicae, i.e. comprising the Scots, should enjoy the same
privileges as the Dutch. The Churfurst is not quite satisfied in his own
mind by this reply. Scotland is not England, he writes back, and a
different custom may obtain there. Therefore an assurance ought to be
demanded from Scotland that in a similar case no quarter would be levied
in that country either (May 1st, 1725). Thus the matter drags on till
1727. A certificate issued from London is not considered sufficient. The
sister of the deceased, after having sent various petitions, at last
appoints a delegate or trustee, who succeeds in procuring the necessary
documents from Dundee and Aberdeen. The former city says: "To all and
everybody reading this letter, we Bessy Allan, the widow of the late John
Leitch, baker in Aberdeen, but now the wife of Alexander Reid, inhabitant
of Old Aberdeen, with the consent of said Alexander Reid for his portion,
and Agnes Leitch, eldest daughter of the said John Leitch, now the wife of
Alexander Webster, shipbuilder in the port of Dundee, send our greeting.
Since the late George Allan, merchant and dyer at Konigsberg, left certain
moneys to the above-named Bessy Allan, his sister, and to Agnes Leitch,
his niece, we appoint Christoph Heidenreich our attorney. Signed by W.
Cruikshank, W. Chalmers, and others."

From Aberdeen, the
following document was sent in 1729: "As His Majesty the King of Prussia
consented to hand over a certain legacy to our citizens, Bessy Allan and
Agnes Leitch, without deducting the regal fourth part or any other part,
on that condition that we should bind ourselves to forward any sums of
money left in succession to Prussian citizens likewise free of duty, if
such case should arise, we testify that not only has hitherto nothing been
detracted but we also promise faithfully on the part of this town not to
do so in future." [The original is written in Latin. St. Archiv,
Konigsberg.]

Examples of this kind could
easily be multiplied. In 1737, for instance, Alexander Fairweather, a
native of Montrose, died at Goldap, a small town in Western Prussia. He
left to each of his sisters, Catherine Fairweather, the wife of James
Smith, at Irvine in Ayr, and to Marjory Fairweather in Montrose, the sum
of three hundred gulden. This legacy the magistrates of Goldap had in the
meantime put on interest, and they now claimed the fourth part of it.
David Barclay, a merchant in Konigsberg, who had been appointed trustee,
appeals to the King; but only in 1740 the legacy is given free, reference
being made to the treaties mentioned above. About twenty years later,
Alexander Moir died at Konigsberg, leaving the large fortune of 38,000
gulden, of which the greater part went to three brothers and sisters at
Danzig. About five thousand gulden were left to his nephew, Samuel Cutler
in London. Here, also, the question of the fourth part arose.

This comment system requires
you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an
account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or
Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these
companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All
comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator
has approved your comment.